On Mon, 09 Aug 2010, Mike Christie wrote: > On 08/09/2010 10:00 AM, Mike Christie wrote: > > On 08/09/2010 09:53 AM, James Smart wrote: > >> Mike, > >> > >> why the motivation to get the dev_loss_tmo from the LLDD ? I would have > >> assumed this would have become a base fc_host attribute which is rd/wr, > >> the default coming from the module parameter, with the "set" propagating > >> to the LLDD to change all rports to the host value (either new direct > >> callback, or loop which calls rport set routine). > > > > qla2xxx and fnic set the default/initial dev_loss_tmo based on some > > value they get from firmware. > > > > The qla2xxx mention is not right. > > Andrew, > > It looks like when the port_down_retry_count is set the > login_retry_count could be adjusted. Actualy it's the other way around. login_retry_count is initially seeded with NVRAM values, then based on value, reassigned to port_down_retry_count. > When the dev_loss_tmo is set by > sysfs does qla2xxx, possibly want to adjust the login_retry_count? I'd prefer to continue to have port_down_retry_count stay as a seeded value to the transport (fc_host). -- av -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
